IPC International Community magazine an association member publication
Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/1546209
34 I-CONNECT007 MAGAZINE I AUGUST 2026 near-perfect printed circuit assemblies every time. Don't misunderstand me. DFM remains essential and won't go away, but as I've written about in past columns, DFM alone is not designing with manufac- turing (DWM); it is not cooperative design. PCB Project Steps Every PCB project has a natural process hierarchy, whether the organization formally recognizes it or not. There are myriad elements to the process, starting with program management, which defines the product objectives, including the usual sus- pects: size, weight, cost, schedule, performance, reliability, regulatory obligations, expected produc- tion volume, acceptable risk, and others. These requirements inevitably flow down to the team of individuals responsible for turning the concept into a working product. In the PCB design environment, the work branches into several distinct but interdependent families of activity, including design-rule development, logical design and schematic capture, component selec- tion, box design, material selection and stackup, component placement and routing, signal and power integrity analysis, HDI planning, documen- tation and configuration control, thermal consid- eration, and many others, often product-specific considerations. You probably have your own concerns to add to the list here. Each of these activities often has its own termi- nology, analytical tools, constraints, and measures of success. Yet, importantly, none of these activities can or should operate independently. A decision that optimizes one activity may well create serious difficulties elsewhere. Here are some examples that might help. A smaller component may reduce total PCB area but may require finer fabrication features, which can limit the number of potential vendors. A lower-loss laminate may improve RF performance but create procurement or processing challenges. A buried- via structure may simplify routing while increasing fabrication complexity, inspection difficulty, and cost. A mechanically convenient connector location may force longer high-speed routes or disrupt the power-distribution network. It must be conceded that, at times, overall require- ments make such decisions unavoidable. Ultimately, the project's success or failure often hinges on whether these decisions are considered together. The PCB Designer as Drum Major The PCB designer, like the drum major, is unique- ly positioned within the hierarchy, as nearly every project requirement eventually becomes a physical constraint on the board. Electrical intent becomes placement, routing, impedance, spacing, and return-path requirements. Mechanical intent becomes board outlines, keep- out regions, mounting features, connector posi- tions, and component-height restrictions. Thermal requirements become copper distribution, thermal vias, heat spreaders, airflow considerations, and component separation. Manufacturing require- ments become feature sizes, annular rings, aspect ratios, material selections, panel-utilization choices, and process tolerances. The PCB database is like a musical score, where these otherwise separate engineering intentions meet. This does not mean that the PCB designer should be expected to independently solve every elec- trical, mechanical, manufacturing, and reliability problem. Like the drum major, it is not his role to play every instrument; the PCB designer ensures that all band members know the music and follow instructions to create a satisfying musical experi- ence. The designer must have timely access to the people who own those problems. I was discussing this with a well-known and respected friend in the industry, who observed that one should not ask a piccolo player to sound like a tuba. He was spot on! Too often, real collaboration begins only after the layout is substantially complete. At that point, the manufacturing engineer reviews the design for fabrication concerns, the assembler checks component clearances and solderability, the SI specialist identifies problematic interconnects, and the mechanical team discovers enclosure conflicts. Unfortunately, you get a predictable result: redesign, schedule pressure, strained relationships among team members, and too often, costly compromises that don't always deliver on their promises. The F L E X I B L E T H I N K I N G